Posts Made By: Jason Cosford

East Antarctica receives very little precipitation.
That more snow will fall as a result of global warming was predicted quite some time ago.
So, I agree with you that it is seldom discussed, but it is not a refutation of the
theory. Quite the contrary, the successful prediction supports the theory.

The Antartic peninsula is quite different climatically. It is similar to the Patagonian Icefields. Here, there has always been an abundance of precipitation, but melting is tipping the mass balance toward retreat.

Lindzen is one of the most prominent and respected scientists that disagrees with anthropogenic global warming. His opinions are well known and I respect him. At least he is not of the same cut as Singer, Ball, etc.

Nope. Here is a company based in my hometown: http://www.htcenergy.com/

The follow-up letters and the authors response are very interesting. The problem with blaming the sun is that all of the solar trends of the last 20 years oppose the warming trend: http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

To me, these results are very telling. There are numerous paleoclimatic records spanning much of the Holocene that show very significant correlations with solar activity. Then, "mysteriously" the trends diverge in the 20th century. Hmm, could something else be at play? Hmm, what could that be? I know, cow farts!!

This is clearly the result of the policies of President Bush, John McCain, and the republicans during the past 10 years.

Well c'mon now, give the trickle down some time. We'd best buy umbrellas for when the downpour starts!

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html

Have a look at the graphs on the right side of the page.

It is sad that she died just one day before her grandson becomes President.

AAGGHHH

As a Canadian, I apologize to the world.

It is shameful that we ban asbestos here, but continue to produce it for export. Shameful. The reason has to do with the tricky politics between the federal government and the province of Quebec, where the mines are located. Shameful.

As for the "Green Shift", yes, it did hurt the Liberals, but note that of the five federal parties (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Greens, and Bloc) only the Conservatives did not support a carbon tax and they did not win the popular vote. There were of course other factors, particularly a liberal leader that just didn't connect with voters.

In my home province, our conservative premier decried the green shift and warned that it would destroy our economy, then amazingly, just days after the election he goes on to announce that we need some kind of tax on emissions: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/10/24/greenhouse-levies.html What a knob.

With the manufacturing sector in a tailspin, we have becoming increasingly depended on the export of oil, particularly from the dirty oil sands. The only way that further oil sands development will cease is if the price stays at $65 a barrel (not likely) or if American's stop buying oil produced from the oil sands. Just as conflict diamonds were tagged, so too could oil. Canada supplies the US with more oil than any other. As long as there is a demand, our conservative government will ensure the supply, regardless of the costs to the environment. In fact, we are obligated under NAFTA to ensure supply to the USA.

Don't worry Danny, the liberals will be back. They have governed the country longer than any other. They are the party that balanced the budget (following the reckless spending of the conservatives) and ran nearly a decade of surpluses. IF the liberals select a more charismatic leader, dare I say Obama-esque, they will trounce the awkward and incompetent conservatives. A carbon tax, in some form, is coming, it is inevitable. The timing may be sped up depending on how Obama decides how to address American emissions: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/05/canada-us-environment.html

I just realized that I posted a dead link. Here it is if others are interested:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;322/5903/940

Andreas, if you can't get a copy, you can PM me.

Robert Pasken said:

A curious thing just happened. The Russians made a mistake by sending September temperatures as October tmperatures, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. NOAA and GISS caught the error and within 24 hours had the correct data in place. The good thing is that with many eyes checking the data it is easy to catch the problem. The same thing occurred with the UAH MSU-LT data, which had yet another major set of problems, but the problem with UAH MSU-LT data was quickly caught and corrected. This is good science at work. Every one involved should be justifiably proud of the work they did.

The curious thing is the posts on wattsupwiththat.com. First a few FACTS, GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year, however, Watts proudly proclaims that GISS sent out a press release "declaring the October the 'warmest ever'". Once again GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year. Watts further claims "I believe they had two sets of data: One would be released if Republicans won, and another if Democrats won.", "could this be a sneaky way to set up the BO presidency with an urgent need to regulate CO2?", "There are a great many of us who will under no circumstance allow the oppression of government rule to pervade over our freedom—-PERIOD!!!!!!" (exclamation marks reduced enormously), "these people are blinded by their own bias", "this sort of scientific fraud", "Climate science on the warmer side has degenerated to competitive lying", etc…

You wonder why as a scientist I consider Watts, who never was anything more than a TV personality, to be a fraud and liar.

Here is what FOX News reported: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453665,00.html

We report. You decide. Okay, I decided. I agree with Robert.